|
Post by tangent on Aug 12, 2015 13:04:40 GMT
No, I mean the efficiency of the organisation.
Profit is not a bad thing if it forces a company to run efficiently. A company with a turnover of $1billion might pay dividends worth $50million. That means it has to charge its customers an extra 5% to cover the payment it makes to its shareholders. The argument goes that companies that have to pay 5% of their turnover to shareholders must be at least 5% more efficient to survive. If so, the end customer gets its services more cheaply than if the company were run by the government on a not-for-profit basis. However, I suspect health insurance companies have so many marketing ploys that they can hide the extra cost of being super-inefficient and of paying their directors super-inflated wages.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Aug 12, 2015 22:50:09 GMT
Steve I did not know that the NHS would pay for you to have an operation in Slovakia? How so?
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Aug 13, 2015 1:16:57 GMT
Slovakia is just an example.
According to Wikipedia, most European countries, including Slovakia, have universal health care, although I imagine its efficacy varies. As far as I know, this means countries have a reciprocal arrangement whereby a tourist in Slovakia can obtain emergency health care and the country to which the tourist belongs will pay for it (or Slovakia pays for it, I'm not sure which). There have been cases in the past - around 2003 IIRC - where the NHS waiting list for, say, hip replacements was so long that British citizens could opt to have operations abroad at the NHS's expense. I'm a bit vague because I can't remember the actual facts. But it seems emminently sensible and so I don't see why we should not be able to today.
You may remember the case of Ashya King whose parents wanted her to have proton beam therapy in Prague. The UK only has one proton beam therapy unit, in Liverpool, and it is too heavily used for eye operations. The treatment centre in Southampton argued that Ashya should have conventional radiotherapy - much like proton beam therapy but not as finely focused. Ashya's parents wanted to take her to Prague but Southampton disagreed - I suspect because they were miffed that a less advanced country had better equipment. And it would have cost the NHS more. Ashya's parents fled to Spain with Ashya and were arrested but in the end she got the treatment and is now cured of cancer.
I imagine, if you want an operation in a cooperating country that the NHS is willing to pay for, your doctor and/or a consultant has to agree that it is necessary and that it is in your interests.
|
|
|
Post by robert on Aug 13, 2015 14:30:24 GMT
However, it would seem that a for profit healthcare agency/system would not be motivated to treat those less able or unable to pay for these services. Efficiency is not always a good thing if it is efficient at providing services for only a certain demographic.
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Aug 13, 2015 18:59:15 GMT
True
|
|
|
Post by robert on Aug 14, 2015 13:43:18 GMT
:-)
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Aug 16, 2015 20:31:00 GMT
The funny thing is that I know fierce opponents of Obamacare who are below the breadline themselves and claim they are paying more. Maybe they are. Perhaps fully socialised medicine would be a much better deal for the US but I can't see a majority going for it.
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Aug 16, 2015 21:37:37 GMT
Bernie Sanders has added it to his wishlist.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Aug 17, 2015 17:13:41 GMT
I wish him well but I've seen a lot of opposition to it. None of it makes any sense to me
|
|
|
Post by whollygoats on Aug 17, 2015 20:28:24 GMT
A healthcare system which inserts insurance companies which are 'for profit' assures that the primary concern is the earned profits to pay out to the investors, not the health of the serviced customers. The system is already perverse in that practitioners are paid on the basis of providing service....whether that service cures, maims, kills, or changes nothing at all. The net result is that those in need of medical care get the the therapy which will garner the provider, and the insurance company, a tidy profit and the customer is tough out of luck.
Single-payer removes the profit motive from the middle-man but would probably introduce mechanisms to restrict usage and introduce rationing of medical care. The system also needs to move back to educating and supporting more generalists, like GPs, family medicine and internists, and de-emphasizes the specialists. The system also needs to find a way to extract the parasitic and predatory pharmaceutical industry from its compulsive manipulation of the entire system for their profit.
Bernie Sanders is the only candidate to speak any kind of sense at all on these measures.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Aug 18, 2015 20:38:59 GMT
The US pharmaceutical industry is another thing that I don't get.COmpetitive business I gather.
|
|
|
Post by whollygoats on Aug 18, 2015 23:03:57 GMT
The US pharmaceutical industry is another thing that I don't get.COmpetitive business I gather. "Competitive"? No, I would not say so. I'd call it a 'price leadership oligopoly'. They buy and sell congresscritters like athletic trading cards. They control much of the media through the massive amounts of advertising they do, including much of the 'peer-reviewed' scientific journals of which the science types are so enamoured. They control their market and there is no 'consumer sovereignty', which is absolutely necessary for there to be 'competition'.
|
|
|
Post by robert on Aug 19, 2015 0:39:53 GMT
Agreed Whollygoats. Personally I do not have health insurance of any kind and desperately need glasses. I haven't had a pair in over 10 years.
|
|
|
Post by Sarah W. on Aug 19, 2015 15:02:09 GMT
Most health insurance plans don't cover glasses anyway, but they do cover the exam. I think you can get eye exams pretty cheaply at some stores, Walmart for instance does them. I got my current glasses online for amazingly cheap.
|
|
|
Post by robert on Aug 19, 2015 19:37:22 GMT
I looked into it...I can't afford it.
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Aug 19, 2015 19:45:49 GMT
What sort of price are you looking at, Robert?
|
|
|
Post by robert on Aug 20, 2015 23:05:30 GMT
What sort of price are you looking at, Robert? Too much for me ha
|
|
|
Post by juju on Aug 21, 2015 0:14:59 GMT
A routine eye test here is about £20 - that's just over $30. You can get one free if you're a child, on a low income or over 60, and even if you're not, often opticians will knock the cost of the test off the price of the glasses. Kids, people low incomes and pensioners are entitled to free glasses.
|
|
|
Post by robert on Aug 25, 2015 1:27:40 GMT
It is more here however.
|
|
|
Post by juju on Aug 25, 2015 7:02:49 GMT
Really? You surprise me...
|
|
|
Post by robert on Aug 26, 2015 1:55:00 GMT
Really? You surprise me... Do I surprise you or the situation in the US? And if I do, how so?
|
|
|
Post by juju on Aug 26, 2015 8:06:02 GMT
I was being sarcastic about the situation in the US. In other words I am not at all surprised that it is more expensive there.
|
|
|
Post by Sarah W. on Aug 26, 2015 14:43:27 GMT
I'm surprised that eye exams aren't covered by the NHS. Most insurance here covers them.
The free glasses for kids, elderly and low income is brilliant, though.
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Aug 26, 2015 15:55:31 GMT
I'm surprised that eye exams aren't covered by the NHS. Most insurance here covers them. It is for children, old people, diabetics, people at risk of glaucoma, partially sighted (blind) people, people on income support, or prisoners on leave from prison. I don't know why the last qualify
|
|
|
Post by robert on Aug 28, 2015 10:26:58 GMT
Yes. It seems everything dealing with healthcare is significantly higher here than anywhere else. When prices are set by private industry, this is the result.
|
|
|
Post by kingedmund on Sept 13, 2015 5:36:32 GMT
American politics always seems like bread and circuses to me. Not that Canadian politics aren't heading in the same direction... How bout circus only. LOL.
|
|
|
Post by robert on Sept 13, 2015 15:23:34 GMT
American politics always seems like bread and circuses to me. Not that Canadian politics aren't heading in the same direction... How bout circus only. LOL. Or Cirque du Soleil lol
|
|
|
Post by kingedmund on Sept 15, 2015 3:35:40 GMT
Funny.
|
|
|
Post by whollygoats on Sept 15, 2015 4:00:27 GMT
American politics always seems like bread and circuses to me. Not that Canadian politics aren't heading in the same direction... How bout circus only. LOL. More like just the freak show. This time around, at least.
|
|
|
Post by kingedmund on Sept 16, 2015 4:40:24 GMT
True. I really would not know where to begin. For the next year I shall become a Johovas Witness. They don't pay attention to politics. Or not allowed to. But then I can't tell them about my personal life because I would get kicked out. ....excommunicated or something. Lol
|
|